While it would be nice to have online discussion without moderation, in practice it simply doesn't work. There are just too many trolls out there who wreck it for everyone else. (I've moderated online chat for > 20 years, so I have some experience of trolling).

The other issue, which is perhaps more relevant here, is illegal content. Are you saying, for example, that it shouldn't be illegal for someone to put posters up on every street corner in their town saying that Mexicans are all child molestors and should be shot? Where should the line be drawn?

Actually, in the US, hate speech is not illegal and the hypothetical posters you mention would be protected speech. “Should be shot” is protected, “should be shot at 11am today at the soccer field on Hicks Road” would not be protected. There’s the concept of “true threat.”

Here is an interesting article related to this: https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/true-threat...

There is a mistaken assumption that hate speech is illegal. In the US, it isn’t illegal. Speech that contains a specific threat of violence would be illegal — but such threats have to be specific.

There is a song by the band Type O Negative called “Kill all the white people” and the first line of the song is “kill all the white people and then we’ll be free.”

That song is hate speech and promotes violence against white people — but it isn’t illegal.

Even speech promoting overthrowing the government is also protected as is speech calling for killing police or raping people.

Disgusting stuff sure — but not illegal speech.

Would you please not post flamebait to HN?

Though I'm hesitant, I'll bite. What has Trump said that you'd consider hate speech?

Many people consider the spreading of overt lies and conspiracies about specific ethnic and religious groups to be hate speech. For example, Holocaust denial is considered hate speech in many places.

If you consider things like the "blood libel" hate speech (back when antisemitism was rampant in Europe, there were very popular myths spread by people that Jews would kill Christian children and consume their blood for esoteric rituals), then his overture is full of them. From "Muslims cheered in Jersey while watching the 9/11 attacks" to "You have to kill the families of terrorists" to “If you have people coming out of mosques with hatred and death in their eyes and on their minds, we’re going to have to do something.” (how do you see hatred and death in someone's eyes or minds? It's clearly promoting the hatred of Muslim people because they apparently leave mosques wanting to kill you) to (again about Muslims) “There's a sickness. They're sick people. There's a sickness going on. There's a group of people that is very sick.” to the story he told about killing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood as an effective means of stopping terrorism to “They're going to have to turn in the people that are bombing the planes. And they know who the people are. And we're not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft.”

I mean, is any one of those statements literally "I hate Muslims"? No.

But is spreading lies that Muslims leave mosques with "hate in their eyes and minds" and that Muslims cheered for 9/11 and that Muslims are sick and twisted people and that Muslims are willfully hiding terrorists and not respecting America, etc etc. and that all this (all these false things) need to be stopped no matter what the cost (kill the family members of suspects, dip bullets in pigs blood etc), is all that not promoting hatred? Is the effect of that speech not exactly the same as the effect of hate speech?

source for all statements: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...

Also the comments about Mexico:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/donald-trump-mexico-...

> Are you saying, for example, that it shouldn't be illegal for someone to put posters up on every street corner in their town saying that Mexicans are all child molestors and should be shot? Where should the line be drawn?

It would be inconsistent with the principle of free speech to sanction certain things from being said in public. Even racist, offensive and blatantly stupid bullshit (like your example) should not be censored.

The reason for this is because, paradoxically, if we assume that people are capable of rational discussion and debate they will eventually see where their beliefs or statements were in error through their reasoning.

To borrow my previous analogy, _hate-speech_ laws are akin to telling a child to: "obey; because I am your father" as opposed to people self-correcting their ethics through open debate and questioning.

> if we assume that people are capable of rational discussion and debate they will eventually see where their beliefs or statements were in error through their reasoning

I think it's pretty obvious that many people aren't capable of that.

Also, there’s that troublesome word “eventually”.

I have no problem with content moderation as long as it stays on a specific platform. I strongly object against any form of internet censoring (e.g. DNS manipulation), but deleting posts by the rules of a specific forum is okay for me.

The difference is that one thing forms a community by the rules they set for themselves and the other thing tries to restrict the communication between people.

Evey unmoderated community gradually turns into 4chan, because only 4channers can tolerate other 4channers who spew all over unmoderated sites.

4chan is moderated, though.

Moderation doesn't create a civil online society any more than police create a civil society in real life. At best it reinforces the norms of the existing culture, at worst, it works against it to impose a cultural facade.

>content moderation is essentially a form of social engineering

I mean, do you think social engineering is bad? What do you think Public Service Announcements are for? Why do you think governments give tax credits to people who buy electric vehicles? Social engineering is a great tool when wielded responsibly with citizen oversight.

> a policy that dictates what content gets filtered to users is analogous to a parent forbidding a child from watching an age restricted movie.

Which most people would agree is perfectly reasonable parenting. If there's an argument in here, I suppose it's that a content platform is entering into a paternal relationship with its participants. But that really isn't what's happening when it comes to the relationship between adults and participants on such a platform isn't a paternal one, it's more like guests at a house. Anyone would be perfectly within their rights and might well have reasonable justifications for controlling what kind of media or other expressions are welcome in their home or other environments that are under their stewardship.

There are drawbacks to limiting expression. Your example of the visceral impact of watching violence piercing apathy is a reasonable point. But it's equally reasonable to suggest that the apathy has other sources (there are other causes of psychological distance), that there are diminishing returns to explicitly portraying violence (most people already believe that killing except in self-defense is wrong), and of course there appear to be real negative impacts as discussed in the article.

> IMHO, people should at least be presented with the option to see what is getting filtered rather than selectively suppressing objectionable material lest society remain indifferent..

This is almost reasonable. The problem is that the material itself is only a primary concern. Secondary effects include encouraging other participants to doxx, engage in violent threats, etc. You're not just selecting material, you're creating a set of expectations for how civilized people are.

Perhaps there should be unfiltered forums; I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from creating one. But general social media platforms should probably reflect some norms of civil societies their members are drawn from, as well as whatever additional values their owners may hold.